New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 04:24pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14272 of 14273)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Reconstructing Archipelagos HEADS

USA to assist $AUD250,000 Indonesia to improve STATE education

(to counteract cheap-rote pesantren 'terror' schooling)

IF Bush gives the go-ahead!

Seems more worthwhile than 'hunt the thimble' Iraq

----

Thimble - may be what Saddam is hiding under - just move those three thimbles around again ... He's under the one in the middle .... no he's not ... have another go!

cantabb - 05:00pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14273 of 14273)

rshow55 - 01:41pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14266 of 14270)

You have already been making my point on your self-referencing, but you out-did yourself: about 150 self-referencingnks in 5 posts !

How obsessive !

THIS, instead of answering two simple questions I have been asking you in the past 2 weeks.

More of the same circular referencing is just a continuing part of tortured rationalization: the Orwellian '1984' revisited. NOT the answer.

Just another confirmation, as if we needed one, of your forays farther and farther OFF-topic. Overall, your continued abuse of forum privilege !

I think "connecting the dots" and "loop tests" are useful. Not perfect, not complete in themselves, but still essential to human cognition. And not well enough understood today. It seems clear that Cantabb disagrees.

Whether or not you like the "connections of the dots" illustrated, it seems to me that the articles related to the cites are well worth reading. They are written by people I respect - because of the writing - and the placement of the articles. Perhaps cantabb respects these people and this work, too. But maybe not . It seems to me that he goes way out of his way to acknowledge any common ground about anything.

Who said that 'connecting the dots' and 'loop tests' are NOT 'useful'?

The question was how YOU are trying to do it -- WITHOUT verifiable facts [the "dots"] and mindless rote of the same !

What aspect of acquiring relevant facts and verifying them ["checking" for accuracy] that you still don't understand ?

rshow55 - 01:41pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14267 of 14270)

rshow55 - 01:42pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14268 of 14270)

rshow55 - 01:43pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14269 of 14270)

rshow55 - 01:46pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14270 of 14270)

This thread has had a lot of technical discussion about missile defense -and one way to see that is to look at searchs - including old ones that relate to old citations archived at

This thread has covered a lot of ground about specifically technical issues in missile defense.

You mean about 20% of total posts, according to your own generous estimate.

It has also clarified disagreements about logic that seem to engage the emotions - and that are very practical. Everybody has to worry about disagreements - and what others think and feel - and I do, but there are limits. .........

ONCE AGAIN, IF you still have not defined what you think you have been working on for 2+ years on this forum and can NOT substantiate even a fraction of your claims, what's there to agree/disagree on ?

Ironically, there IS an agreement, based on what you admitted : THAT you have been working HARD, but still have NOT provided an ANSWER to the questions asked.

I'm taking a rest, for a little while.

Thanks for keeping us posted with your schedule.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense